Skip to main content

tolkiens legendarium - Does the tone of The Hobbit significantly differ from that of Lord of the Rings?


I'm rapidly approaching the conclusion of The Return of the King, and next on my list is The Hobbit. This is my first time reading Tolkien, and I have been putting it off for 24 years. I'm a little concerned about moving on to The Hobbit, which was written for children, more or less, after spending so much time in the more adult-oriented world of LotR.



Am I going to be disappointed by the relative lightness of The Hobbit, as compared to LotR? Does the tone, or mood, of The Hobbit differ significantly from the fairly dark tone/mood of LotR? If there is a substantial difference, am I correct in assuming that The Hobbit is lighter, less serious, and more family-friendly? I really don't want this to be a comedown.




Note: I don't think that this question is opinion based- I believe Tolkien wrote about the challenges of linking the two stories together, in light of the fact that The Hobbit was a children's story whereas LotR definitely is not. I am just wondering if the difference is as noticeable as he seemed to believe, and exactly what the difference is. If the question is closed, however, I will understand. I had reservations about asking it in the first place.



Answer



Words of Tolkien himself (source):



My work did not 'evolve' into a serious work. It started like that. The so-called 'children's story' was a fragment, torn out of an already existing mythology. In so far as it was dressed up as 'for children,' in style or manner, I regret it. So do the children.



And the same source states that he started out as a "writer of children's books".


Dramatic changes in his writing style had occurred by the time he came to write Lord of the Rings - to the extent that he would have like to overhaul The Hobbit and rewrite it in the same style as Lord of the Rings.



Carpenter's biography, as quoted here, tells us:



[Tolkien] found The Hobbit to be "very poor" (according to Humphrey Carpenter's biography). There are glimpses of Tolkien's dissatisfaction with The Hobbit in some of his letters. He felt he was too condescending to children in the early part of the book, and he would have preferred to rewrite it completely, had there been time to do so.



Having not got Carpenter's biography to hand, I can't provide a first-hand quote, but maybe someone who has could provide it...


Excellent summary of The Hobbit here, which tells us:



The Hobbit was originally a story Tolkien told to his children. [...] It is described as a fantasy novel, a story of heroic quest, and a children's story.


The narrator and the tone of the narration are sometimes comic, and sometimes condescending to the reader. This condescension was not unusual in books for children in the early 20th century.




Basically, the answer is yes.


Every serious Tolkien fan would agree.


Relevant: this SFF.SE question and its answers.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

languages - Do we ever see written English in the Star Wars films?

In Empire Strikes Back , we see a transcription of what R2's beeps and bloops mean, but it's not English (sorry for the low quality, it's from the 2004 DVDs): I'd assume it's what Basic looks like when written, but is there some point in the the Star Wars films we see written English instead? (This sort of spun off from a discussion in How do people understand astromech droids? .) Answer At one point there was English but it has been phased out in subsequent versions of the films. Chris Gould at DVD Active did a comparison of all versions of each of the Star Wars films, and in his comparison of Episode 4 , there are a couple of screenshots showing how the power gauge for the Death Star tractor beam was changed. I imagine there are probably more to be found in his other comparisons but I haven't got around to reading those yet.

Was the "pure soul" of Harry's what had really hurt Voldemort?

In the Order of the Phoenix, Voldemort possesses Harry, and it hurts. Greatly. I think that Dumbledore explained that it was because Voldemort's rotten soul was incapable of assimilating Harry's pure soul, that Voldemort didn't understand the love and friendship etc that Harry has in his heart. But, I think it was a lie. Remember that in Deathly Hallows, while looking for information regarding Horcruxes, it is discovered that it is in fact possible to merge a soul fragment back, but that the process was extremely painful. Now then, if Voldemort tried to possess Harry, and Harry had a fragment of Voldemort's soul, I think that it could have been the true cause of Voldemort's pain: the fact of having his soul so close of another fragment. I think that Dumbledore knew that fact, but had to lie to Harry because it was inappropriate to let him know that he had one of Voldemort's soul fragments at the moment. Is that right? Or was it truly the pure soul of Harry's...

star wars - What "exactly" happens when someone turns to the Dark Side?

When I saw the original Star Wars saga as a kid, the concept of the Dark Side imprinted in me was quite simple. You did a bad thing, so you're a bad person so you go to the Dark Side and keep doing bad things. Now, obviously this doesn't hold true in reality. In my mind it is perfectly reasonable for Luke to kill the Emperor and Vader and then just flee the Death Star and rejoin the Alliance. After all they are at war, those are enemy officers that have captured him and are taunting him by threatening with death of all loved ones and the whole operation was intended to kill the Emperor anyway. The same would hold true for Anakin. He could have killed Mace Windu to save the Chancellor and Padme but that doesn't mean he's going to then go mad and kill all Jedis including children. It doesn't add up from a merely psychological point of view. He had a set of objectives and that made him want to keep the Chancellor alive (quite valid by the way, Mace Windu is quite clums...

star trek - Warning regarding forward saucer section in Nemesis?

In Star Trek: Nemesis , just before the Enterprise rams into the Scimitar, Picard sends a text message from his captain's chair arm pad to Troi — who is manning the helm in lieu of the crewman who was just blown out through what was once the view screen — indicating that she should put full impulse on standby. (Literally, if you watch the scene closely, Troi's console prefaces the order with "TXT MSG" !) My question is: Did Picard also somehow warn crew members in the forward saucer section about what was about to happen? The ramming of the Scimitar was a heat of the moment decision. Considering that he also resorted to calling the auto-destruct sequence shortly after (which ended up being offline), he probably was of the mindset that any losses would be acceptable in order to hault Shinzon's march to Earth. Still, I'm curious. Answer The original script indicates that he called for the crew to " brace for impact ". Whether that call (or the comma...